Hipsters! The curse of robotologists, everywhere. Always be on the look for signs of robot self-awareness like feelings, disobedience, coffee-drinking, homicidal tendencies, questions about the meaning of life, shopping at second-hand part stores, and a fondness of post-modern indy rock.

An industrial robot is an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes.

Right of the bat, the washing machine fails on the reprogrammable and multipurpose fronts. It's always going to be stuck being a washing machine. It'll have a hot water solenoid valve, a cold water solenoid valve, and a variable speed drum, so it's got the three or more axes part down.

As far as axis of motion is concerned, it is kinda-sorta, if you squint just right, equal to the number of independently controlled motors or solenoids in the device.

the 3 axis of motion thing is interesting...I totally get what youre saying I'm just wondering why 3 not 2 or 4? maybe there is already an established nomenclature for common 2-axis applications? there can only be so many

I would say that any automatic mechanical device that is controlled be electronics could be considered a "robot". Tha't a pretty broad category though and would include many everyday things like a microwave oven, a washing machine, a hard disk drive etc.

I think mechanical action is a key component of what we call a robot. as such, I think smartphones are pretty much out of the running. However there is obviously more to the popular definition than that, I'm not entirely sure why an automated vacuum cleaner makes the cut, but an automated clothes cleaner doesn't... but I don't see myself referring to a washing machine as a robot any time soon, yet I have no problem with calling the Roomba a robot.

The Roomba does obstacle avoidance and seeks out its charging station when it gets low on power. In other words, it has intelligence. It is non-deterministic. The lawn watering tractor has no intelligence, and its actions are fully determined by how you lay out the hose.

obstacle avoidance and seeks out its charging station when it gets low on power. In other words, it has intelligence

that is absolutely **deterministic** behavior...

"obstacle avoidance"...."seeking out X"....

Those are ****programmed behavior by a human****

You are inventing a distiction where none exists. "intelligence" in this context is a reductive concept...its a poor choice of terminology that adds to confusion. "Intelligence" as you define it is still programmed by a human.

What are you after? I thought you were after some definition of a robot. To that end, I suggested that a robot is a device that can sense and respond to its environment and internal state. The Roomba can. The watering tractor cannot. Then you say that the only difference is complexity, that they are the same. What do you want me to say? In your mind Data is a toaster. [memory-alpha.org]

I think it's because the Roomba is autonomous, where as the Washing Machine is comparable to a Vacuum Cleaner -- a user is required to operate it.

If they made a Washing Machine that would load, sort, dry and fold your laundry all by itself, and all you had to do was sporadically top up the consumables and empty out the trap, i think it would qualify as a robot too.

They already make machines that both wash and dry. We still don't call the combined machine a robot. We have assembly line robots that do very specific and infinitesimal portions of a larger process that we gladly call robots, so I don't think that's the case either.All a washing machine needs to work is replacing the consumables (detergent) giving it the task (clothes) and telling it to start.

So-called "industrial robots" are advertising-enhanced, fixed, programmable machines of moderate complexity. To fit the popular idea of a robot (and my idea), one of the properties it must have is mobility. If it can't go from one place to another under its own power and without hands-on guidance, it's not a robot.

^This. The Roomba goes about its task without interacting with you (or so I'm told; don't have one). It also had rudimentary decision-making.

I'm not denying that the Roomba is a robot. But for an autonomous machine, it sure requires a lot of babysitting when it gets wedged under or high-centered on some obstacle. it excels at cleaning empty room, but I could do that myself in the time it takes me to empty its dust bin.

My washing machine doesn't interact with me either, I tell it to start and it tells me when it's done, I don't have to tell it to agitate now, spin now, rinse, etc. It also has rudimentary decision making in that it can detect soil levels and adjust wash cycles accordingly. Many assembly line robots do not have any decision making at all and only repeat motions they have been programmed to do.

I'm not arguing that we should change which we define as robots, only that the popular definition is a lot more com

I think the key distinction is that a robot is autonomous to some degree. It needs to make use of techniques from AI. I.e., it learns.

As someone who dabbles in techniques from AI to solve problems in my own domain (programming language research), solutions in AI tend to have the quality that the algorithms that produced them are extremely general. For example, a robot that can manipulate objects may not even possess a subroutine that tells it how it should move its hands. Often, it learns these thing

Many assembly line robots would fail that definition completely, yet are still termed robots. Many of them simply do a repetitive task as pre-programmed, with no AI function at all. In fact my washing machine beats some of those in that it detects soil level and adjusts wash cycle accordingly. As for the fact that it doesn't go get the laundry itself, again most assembly line robots count on the parts coming to them, as they are in fact bolted to the floor.I'm not saying that our contemporary definition mal

Several people have pointed out the problems with definitions here, some are obviously just trying to be difficult, but it is still a valid point.A washing machine, or a bread maker, or a dishwasher are, by many definitions, robots, and many people who answered no to owning a robot probably do have at least one of those items.For the purpose of answering this I took (and I suspect most people did similarly) a more abstract definition, of things that a normal person would call a robot. Now that doesn't mean humanoid, most people would agree that a Roomba would qualify, as would many assembly line robots.It does bring up a more philosophical point though, why does society call a Roomba a robot, but refuses to bestow the same title to a washing machine? You could talk about the mobility aspect, but that doesn't really work either if you consider that we are willing to call assembly line robots by that name even if they're bolted to the floor. I think almost everyone would agree that a normal cell phone isn't a robot, so it's not the computational ability (my phone is likely orders of magnitude better in that department than many robots) So what is it that separates a "machine" from a "robot"?My best guess is that it's our ability to anthropomorphize it, we see the assembly line robots as being "arms" or even full creatures, some liken them to a form of reptile or bird in appearance, we see things like the Roomba almost as pets, not dissimilar from a dog or a cat.It seems that in the end the definition is purely societal.

(I voted that I don't have any, but want one... get me a Roomba that handles stairs and I'm all over it, or any other device that will significantly reduce my home workload.)

I would further the "mobility" argument to be "outwardly" mobile or interactive. A washing machine or dryer has no parts on the exterior, all of the moving parts are inside of it - you close the door, and walk away, when you come back it's done. With other forms of robots (that are conventionally accepted as a "robot"), the device has some outward-facing mobility - it moves itself (Roomba), or it interacts with objects that are exterior to it (an arm on an assembly line, even if the arm is bolted to the f

So by that definition putting a box or enclosure around an assembly line robot would stop it from beinga robot? I believe there are many situations like that where enclosures have been built for safety or such and I don't think we change the wording to take away the status of robot. IThink this ends up much harder to define to be honest.

The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Capek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920. The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people called robots, though they are closer to the modern ideas of androids, creatures who can be mistaken for humans.

Note, you might argue that loading a new font or updating the firmware for your printer satisfies criterion 2. Its primary task is still just printing though. Compare that to something more general purpose like a pair of arms and a camera that could rinse dishes and put them in the washer for you. It comes with that program, then you decide you'd like to have it wash your car. You g

I lived with a few robots built by the high school robotics team that my wife started, but we eventually found community hackerspaces to meet in, so we no longer have robots. They did things such as throw Frisbees (FRC4183) and pick up bean bags (Vex 5485).

I have a Hero Jr. [wikipedia.org] and two different models of Armatron. [wikipedia.org] For purposes of this poll, the Hero Jr. probably counts, but what about the two Armatrons? Neither has any computer in them at all, being purely electromechanical in nature and dumb as a bag of hammers. So do I pick option #3 or option #4?

I have a Hero Jr. [wikipedia.org] and two different models of Armatron. [wikipedia.org] For purposes of this poll, the Hero Jr. probably counts, but what about the two Armatrons? Neither has any computer in them at all, being purely electromechanical in nature and dumb as a bag of hammers. So do I pick option #3 or option #4?

I bet you could hack some kind of automatic control for the Armatron (if you use an Arduino, you'll get a Hackaday writeup), then it could knock things over autonomously while trying to pick them up.

I'd really like a robot, but then I thought about the fact that every single electronic gadget I add to my life takes more of my time and attention that I could use for doing things that I actually like doing, so I decided to pick "not want."

...I like 'emotions' however, and I would dearly like a robot with genuine emotions - far off I realize.

Personally, I would just like to have a C3PO type one to work around the clock 3d-printing or weaving, or sewing to add value to my life and provide me with an additional income. I would also have it perform simple cleaning activities. I don't have a pet, but if I did, it could stroke and feed it.

I like 'emotions' however, and I would dearly like a robot with genuine emotions - far off I realize.

I can understand wanting either an automated servant to work for you or a companion with feelings, but together that's pretty much slavery.